The Sugar Conspiracy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin <comment><USER2> Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement.

Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or the fresh fruit and veg section.

My only (dietary) vices are coffee and the odd glass of wine (both very much man made).

I think that the human body has evolved to run on a certain fuel and of course we adapt but it takes time. Grains and milk are relatively recent to our diet (past 10000 years) so you will see some people who can and some who can't digest them. Sugar however and all the other myriad man made products on store shelves are even more recent and apart from as occasional treats should really be avoided.

As an aside one incredibly beneficial thing people can do for their health is exercise. The lymphatic system which helps rid the body of waste substances is 'pumped' by respiration and physical activity. If you want to eat that cupcake or enjoy that cold glass of beer be sure to exercise it off. It really is incredible how effective exercise can be at covering a multitude of dietary sins!

<comment><USER3> >If man made it, don't eat it

That's way too simple. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy as applied to food.

If you think your produce area is where you should be getting your calories (not disagreeing), it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., artificially) bred to produce a wide range of different cultivars including, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, broccoli, kohlrabi, brussel sprouts, and more. NONE of these produce items are "natural."

Getting back to the linked article a bit, if you think fructose is bad, you should know it is very natural. Obviously it occurs in fruits and honey has more fructose than refined sugar and about the same as high fructose corn syrup.

(As a side note, I'm of the opinion we _should_ be engineering foods to make them better for us. We as a species have been doing similar things to our food for thousands of years.)

<comment><USER4> >If man made it, don't eat it

I think a better heuristic, is "Just eat what your great-grandma ate". Or avoid the middle of the supermarket as much as possible.

Simply eating more fat and less sugar/carbs, I have lost 10+ pounds and feel much better. These nutrition fads have done more harm than good. My mother switched from butter to Crisco when I was a kid, then she banned salt from the house, and bought (high sugare, low fat) snack wells for us. All based on poor/pseudo science.

The diabetes and obesity are modern problems caused by a diet that our bodies haven't evolved to handle.

<comment><USER5> _> I think a better heuristic, is "Just eat what your great-grandma ate"_

Unfortunately that's not always possible as we have selectively bred over time for appearance, size and/or sugar content in our fruits, vegetables and even meat at the expense of macro- and micronutrients.

We have also begun overly sanitizing our foods, pasteurizing everything and adding antibiotics to the detriment out our gut microbiome.

In many cases the food our great grandmas ate doesn't exist anymore.

<comment><USER6> My grandma (and probably my great grandma, I've no idea) grew most of the food she ate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very interesting how people can all subscribe to an orthodoxy for so long, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

<comment><USER8> There is no evidence for what Lustig says. He produced one mediocre paper after multiple attempts. That's it. It's not science. It's just an attempt to distract from the real issue.

It started with pet food. Attempts at making plant based foods for dogs and cats initially failed, becuase the animals didn't want to eat these unnatural diets. But a solution was found: the so called "palatants". When they were added to the food, animals ate it.

Naturally, somebody thought of using these in human food as well. It didn't work as expected - it turned out they don't work by making the food tastier, they work by disabling the satiety response. Once the palatants get into your bloodstream, you won't feel satisfied no matter how much you eat until your body can get rid of these these chemicals. You may feel that your stomach is completely filled and stop eating, but you won't ever feel that you ate enough.

Since adults would get suspicious if they got more hungry, it started with child menus. The idea was the same as with pet food - if children eat a lot of the food, their parents will buy it again.

Now we have at least two generations of people who believe it's perfectly normal not to feel satisfied until their stomach can't hold any more food and that staying not obese requires arduous discipline. Our perception of normal weight has changed as well, for pets and human alike. Cats, when fed unaldutered meat eat to stay very skinny, with body shape that many modern guidelines show as "very thin" or "underweight". But many people today think of them as naturally fatty animals.

Many of these chemicals are approved food aditives and are listed usually as emuglators, flour conditioners or something similarly inconspicious.

<comment><USER5> Fascinated by your response, including the history. I'm assuming you are referring to MSG and similar chemicals. What are your sources?

<comment><USER8> I mean tetrasodium pyrophosphate and similar chemicals. But there may be many more that can cause such effects.

<comment><USER9> Do you have any sources for this? I'm looking for academic literature on the effects of tetrasodium pyrophosphate on satiety, but I can't find anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" \- a simple fix.

Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Guyenet out there talking some sanity. Unfortunately, they never make it to mainstream media.

Some Resources:

[http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free- cont...](http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free- content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved- bad-reputation/)

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/testing- insuli...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/testing-insulin- model-response-to-dr.html)

[https://medium.com/@lylemcdonald/highly-processed- carbohydra...](https://medium.com/@lylemcdonald/highly-processed- carbohydrates-cause-more-insulin-secretion-calorie-for-calorie-than-any- other-38f907ae75d1#.p38cx0qc2) (A comment by Lyle on the rhetoric posted by Ludwig)

<comment><USER11> Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

<comment><USER12> This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I worked out it went nowhere. I was borderline starving myself and everything I read said "it's simple calorie in vs out". It became obvious to me that wasn't always true. It's frustrating to hear people spew that when I'm weighing chicken breasts with 110% certainty of what my caloric intake is vs my out and here I was, not losing a damn pound.

I wish I could say I know what was going on. I have theories as I spent months of my life trying to turn the tables. I eventually gave up and just continued to lift weights and eat normal. Now 4 years later I still have that fat I couldn't lose but I'm a lot bigger (muscle). That fat hasn't gone anywhere and in the 4 years I've yo-yo'd with different attempts to get rid of it. The fat I have is not normal.

<comment><USER13> _This doesn 't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet._

 _I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5 '9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months._

You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet can be wildly successful. The former quote seems provably false using the latter.

Honestly, this is what I just read from your post.

 _I can 't lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. Here is an example of how I lost a huge amount of weight on a restricted calorie diet._

<comment><USER12> Not saying it isn't effective, just only that it doesn't work in some cases. It's a fallacy to say it's simply calories in vs out. As I said in my post, I lost weight but then I stopped losing weight and still haven't lost a large amount of weight using that method.

<comment><USER14> I would think that if you've hit a plateau on weight loss within a health weight range (which from the sounds of it, you are within a healthy weight range) then you won. Maintain that, and don't worry about having a little extra fat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Stephan Guyenet, obesity researcher and neurobiologist, critiques the carbohydrate-insulin-obesity hypothesis put forward by Lustig, Taubes, et al. He and Lustig exchange arguments here:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/always- hungry-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/always-hungry-its- probably-not-your.html)

[https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/ludwig-responds-to- whole-h...](https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/ludwig-responds-to-whole-health- source-article-93d8e1667477)

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/testing- insuli...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/testing-insulin- model-response-to-dr.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> One diet that reflects these findings and is tested personally is "5:2 fast diet, proposed by M. Mosley. This method really is effective in reducing the ill effects of modern food and lifestyle and is easy to turn into normal weekly behavior pattern. [https://thefastdiet.co.uk/](https://thefastdiet.co.uk/)

<comment><USER17> That sounds like a typical fad diet. What differentiates it, and what evidence do they have for their claims?

<comment><USER15> The companion documentary (Eat, Fast, and Live Longer) is worth watching - [https://vimeo.com/50912488](https://vimeo.com/50912488)

Personal note: I've been following this diet since Jan 1. I also run ~ 70 miles/week. I've run 3 of my best marathons this year and lost 5 stubborn lbs (145 -> 140, I'm 5'8"). There are other styles of intermittent fasting. I'm enjoying this way of eating.

Aside, a related BBC/Horizon documentary I saw years ago flipped the question of obesity on its head and asked: Why Are Thin People Not Fat?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1hbPXooB1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1hbPXooB1U)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here is a more balanced and more scientific article about sugars and health:

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar- real...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic- sifting-through-the-evidence/)

<comment><USER19> Definitely. Lustig made numerous claims in his Bitter Truth talk that were just incorrect.

Here are articles that are unbalanced but on the other end of spectrum (pro sugar).

[http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-1-is-sugar- real...](http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-1-is-sugar-really-as- bad-as-alcohol-cocaine-heroin/)

[http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter- tr...](http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-truth-about- robert-lustigs-anti-sugar-claims/)

It's interesting that in the USA the calorie consumption rose from 80s to 00s from 3100 to 3600.

In the UK and Australia they eat less fructose but more calories.

Everyone keeps on getting fatter.

There's not a single food to blame. Any food can't be healthy or unhealthy. Diets can be healthy or unhealthy. Thinking otherwise is a sign of unhealthy relationship with food. Avoiding stuff because it is carcinogenic (processed meat) or correlates with cancer (red meat) is ridiculous.

Eating large amounts every day (which is what most of the obese do) isn't?

I don't care if apples have cyanide or 60g of fructose will give me liver disease. I won't eat 50 bananas a day, I won't eat 100 apples a day, I'll eat agave syrup all over my pancakes and won't feel a thing. It's food. I enjoy it. Having fructose in it, or animal products just means I can easily overdose if I consume it every day but I won't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is sad to see how we are going from fat phobia to carb phobia, repeating the same mistakes 50 years later.

I have genetic metabolic disease and I have thought about this many times. My conclusion is simple enough: Eat real food, ignore the macros, listen to your body and adapt your food intake accordingly. Paul Jaminet's diet [1] is the closest I have found to fit this idea.

[1] [http://perfecthealthdiet.com/](http://perfecthealthdiet.com/)

<comment><USER21> What is real food?

I disagree strongly. Eating shouldn't make you tired. I could eat 2 1/3 pound greasy cheeseburgers with toppings but if I skip the buns, I feel like I ate nothing.

There is something legitimate to intermittent fasting, ketogenic diets, avoiding refined carbs, avoiding bread etc.

I have a serious disease that is thought to prevented by ketogenic diets. And I think there's an equal chance I got the disease from refined carbs as anything else.

I also know many so-called experts in this field (MDs) and they know nothing; and worse they do not want to know anything.

My conclusion is simple: just don't eat bread or drink any sugary drinks.

<comment><USER22> If you don't mind me asking, what disease did you get?

<comment><USER20> Mitochondrial myopathy. Simply put, I do not produce enough energy to keep my body up and running.

There are many possible causes; in my case, it is a single large scale deletion in my mitochondrial DNA.

Symptoms are varied. In my case: extremely weak eye muscles (I have both ptosis and diplopia), intermittent fatigue, mild aerobic exercise intolerance and hot intolerance.

From a scale of 1 to 10, being 10 the worst, I rate myself at 3. So, I am doing fine. Watching what I eat, doing some exercise and controlling stress made a big difference in my quality of life (going from 7 to 3)

<comment><USER23>
        mild aerobic exercise intolerance

What happens when you perform aerobic exercises?

<comment><USER20> Difficult to describe. Malaise is the closest word I can find to describe the feeling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here is what worked for me to lose fat (weight), but not muscle.

It really is simple.

\- Reduce carbs/sugar intake to around ~100 grams/day, this varies slightly per person. Just reducing bread/grain intake alone is a TON. Grains are turned into glucose, same as sugar, it's effectively the same thing. This also means getting rid of all sweats, processed food. They are just bad for you whether you are overweight or not...don't do it. Occasional is fine.

\- Drink water. Often times when you are hungry, you're dehydrated. If you drink soda or something else, do the "diet" version at least. Diet Coke, Miller Lite, etc.

\- Portions. Most restaurants in the U.S. server portions that are way too big. Eat half your plate, then wait 10 - 15 min while having a conversation with others or whatever, do something else. Take your mind off food. I bet after 15 min, you won't be that hungry anymore. That super tired feeling you get after a big meal...yeah, you should never have that. That means you overate.

\- Get your heart rate up for at least 10 min a day. Try to do an hour, but sometimes that's not practical with limited time, etc. Even just doing jumping jacks for 10 min will do the trick...Just do it. It's crazy how many people will go a day...a week..or more without out ever getting their heart rate above 100 bpm... That's terribly bad for you.

Forget all the fads or popular, trending stuff out there... They try to sell you on quick fixes. Weight loss is not a quick fix. Instead of viewing it as trying to lose weight, just look at it like trying to live a healthy life style. Don't obsess checking the scale everyday or counting calories. Take a picture of yourself in underwear once a week in the mirror. Every month, not any smaller intervals, check your 4 pictures from that month and see how far you've come. This should drive you more.

That's it, you'll be healthy in no time.

<comment><USER25> Hasn't it been shown that artificial sweeteners can mess with your blood sugar level and may be just as bad for you as sugar? It seems like it would be best to wean yourself from the craving for sweets.

[http://www.webmd.com/diet/20140917/artificial-sweeteners- blo...](http://www.webmd.com/diet/20140917/artificial-sweeteners-blood-sugar)

<comment><USER24> Yeah, there is a lot of different studies about artificial sweeteners, it's a pretty controversial topic...

They probably aren't great for you, but I don't think it's near as bad as consuming 40g of sugar/High fructose corn syrup per soda...

Ideally you stay away from both, but If you are going to drink a soda/sweetened drink, go with the one with 0g sugar and 0g carbs...

Its too easy to intake an stupid amount of carbs and sugar from just liquids...3 sodas in one day and boom...140g of carbs/sugar already...even worse, their "empty carbs", which is to say, it provides you with no nutritional energy/value.

Note: I'm not a dietician/nutritionist. Just someone who has used the above methods and have had great results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> When I was taking nutritional chemistry in the late 70's the idea that serum cholesterol had little to do with consumed cholesterol was something our professor repeated over and over again. The next 40 years I heard the opposite over and over again. Now people are finally accepting this fact.

<comment><USER27> I think the _you are what you eat_ maxim is somewhat responsible for the strange dietary beliefs held by many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> [In response to a now-deleted comment]

It is still a fringe theory in the context of "mainstream" nutritional science. It just happens to also be a theory that aligns surprisingly well with evidence. This paradox is what makes the story increasingly interesting to the community and media.

Whether or not the fundamentals of this line of argument turn out to be ultimately correct, it shines a light on the way practical science can become myopic.

<comment><USER29> except it doesn't align with evidence, unless you cherry pick. people have been getting fatter as fructose consumption has declined, and the studies Lustig & Taubes use to demonize sugar/fructose are done in rats that were fed ungodly amounts of it.

the answer to why people are getting fatter isn't some evil sugar molecule; it's that people are overconsuming food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Look at a graph of postwar obesity rates and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US, the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off like an aeroplane."

Not that I disagree with the premise of this article, but the graphs I can find show that there is a steep increase in the late 70's, not after the Dietary Guidelines were written in the early 80's.

<comment><USER31> > but the graphs I can find show that there is a steep increase in the late > 70's, not after the Dietary Guidelines were written in the early 80's.

But still, the upward trend follows the cultural meme that "fat is bad" that started propagating in the early 1970s. The dietary guidelines only formalized that bit of "scientific wisdom".

(naturally, correlation does not equal causation, but it does often indicate a phenomenon of interest, worthy of further investigation)

<comment><USER32> You are correct....

The McGovern committee (of the U.S. senate) published the first Dietary Goals For The United States in 1977. This was supposed to reverse the epidemic of heart disease.

McGovern rubber-stamped the prevailing views first made popular by Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study, published in 1970. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study)

So the steep increase in starting in the late 70s is right on time....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I thought that "Why We Get Fat" was pretty interesting. It argues that sugar, not fat, is the reason.

[http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat- About/dp/0307474259/](http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat- About/dp/0307474259/)

</comment><comment><USER34> I think it's pretty likely that in 10-20 years, the sugar companies of today will be seen in the same light as the tobacco companies of yesterday.

<comment><USER35> There is no comparability at all. Smoking generates and tobacco contains - known toxic agents. Sucrose (ordinary sugar but also corn syrup) is entirely non-toxic, it being a di-saccharide containing glucose (essential for life though where you get it from is another question) and fructose, found in almost all fruits & adequately metabolized by the liver if provided in small amounts. Too much is disastrous - that's agreed. But so is too much of any food.

No one is forced to buy over-sweetened foods clearly marked with the contents so why blame manufacturers for providing what people want? The food they sell is not toxic but certainly the proportions consumed can be and frequently are. Down to us not the manufacturer.

<comment><USER36> That's not true. If what you are saying was true, late stage diabetics wouldn't lose their legs.

Sugar is toxic to nerves and your body has to heal after every spike.

Yes, it's usually down to us, just so many of 'us' are on the payroll of various lobby groups so most of every popular internet forum is heavily spinned instead of providing info.

Your post seems very biased.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The article is pretty good, but neglects to mention that there are more types of fatty acids than the saturated kind. Unsaturated fatty acids become more unstable as the level of unsaturation increases. The so-called "essential" fatty acids, the polyunsaturated oils, are the most unstable of all.

Soybean oil is useful as biodiesel, and not much else.

<comment><USER38> What is the significance of a fatty acid's being unstable?

<comment><USER39> They get oxidized more easily. Arterial plaque is oxidized fatty acids. Fatty acids are essential to cell wall formation. Deductively, fatty acids which are more susceptible to reactive oxidation species (aka free radicals) will lead to more cell damage. It's an interesting topic and the nutritional science (PUBMED) is very far away from the popular perception (ex Time magazine).

\- [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16757819](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16757819) \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T78cJv6gi88](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T78cJv6gi88) \- [http://oregonstate.edu/dept/biochem/hhmi/hhmiclasses/biochem...](http://oregonstate.edu/dept/biochem/hhmi/hhmiclasses/biochem/lectnoteskga/2kjan14lecturenotes.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> >We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters.

Yay, go internet. The public opinions of the elites on complex contested matters often seem to degenerate into something like party politics.

</comment><comment><USER41> "We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine, eggs with muesli. But we still grew fatter"

Check mueslis and the sugar most of them contains. It's _horrible_. I try buying a no sugar muesli once in a while - within regular european supermarkets, it's next to impossible!

<comment><USER2> Really? I find it in the UK (Tesco) quite readily. Tastes extremely bland though (like eating uncooked porridge oats) which might explain its unpopularity.

<comment><USER23> Curious: how do you eat your muesli?

I eat my unsweetened muesli with yoghurt (like the Swiss do), and find it quite tasty.

<comment><USER2> Chopped dried apricots (if you can pick some up which are grown in Silicon Valley - not kidding - you're in for a treat), almonds, walnuts and a dollop of Greek yoghurt.

Don't overdo the dried fruit though since you'll end up defeating the point of unsweetened muesli!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Looks like "Nutritional Science" has been an oxymoron for far too many decades, perhaps it should have been replaced by "Closed Minded Egotist".

<comment><USER28> Part of the problem is that doing good nutritional science is difficult and expensive, and there's not much grant money or enthusiasm for rigorously testing what we naively assume are the basics.

<comment><USER43> An example I read recently - [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/04/cet...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/04/cetp- finally-heads-to-the-trash-heap)

"But that brings up a third possibility, that lipidology is complex enough to have fooled us completely, and that HDL and LDL are not, in fact, good markers at all. [...] Several large companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars apiece down the drain in finding this out for us."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> "But instead of becoming healthier, [America] grew fatter and sicker."

Complex topic, but this sentence to me was the most interesting from the story; in part, because of how much focus is put on solving problems that do not harm nearly as many Americans being over weight & unhealthy.

It be curious to know if this topic has even come up once in America's election.

<comment><USER45> Overweight and unhealthy are very different things.

There is never been a scientific study that showed being overweight (not obese) causes health problems. And the opposite causality (weight gain resulting from unrelated health problems) is incredibly common.

Julie Guthman's book "Weighing In" goes into detail.

<comment><USER44> Interesting any other suggested source of info on nutrition?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Only hacker news could bikeshed over the definition of man-made food.

</comment><comment><USER47> Sugar free for almost two years now and I avoid it like the plague. Really glad to see more and more articles like these.

All the naysayers should continue to eat sugar, and let nature do it's "thing".

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands _" Nobody could have predicted, it is said, how the food manufacturers would respond to the injunction against fat – selling us low-fat yoghurts bulked up with sugar, and cakes infused with liver-corroding transfats."_

It's interesting the author notes trans-fats as a by product of the injuction against fat, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Trans-fat has been around since the 1900's and was used widely as a substitute for butter when it was in short supply during WWII. Remember Crisco? Mom's in the 1970's used it for everything, including baking and cooking. It wasn't until the 1990's that the FDA finally put warnings out regarding partially hydrogenated oil.

The fact is, trans fats had been around a LONG time before before the government decided to start saying that it was bad for your health. Hell, it took them another decade before they made the recommendation to stop using trans fats after the 1980 guidelines came out.

</comment><comment><USER48> Throwing two things in a bucket and information is lost. This makes the topic so complex everyone talks about carbs but almost no one talks about that fructose and glucose are very different in very significant ways:

1) Natural prevalence: Glucose is more common 2) Digestion: Glucose is transported by different mechanisms from the gut to the bloodstream. The mechanisms for fructose are in some people significantly weaker 3) Regulation in the body: Glucose is regulated by insulin and handled by all cells. Fructose is left to the liver and contributes to blood triglycerides.

If intake, processing, regulation and resting places are different should there not always be two different discussions?

</comment><comment><USER49> > Eventually, he tracked down a copy after submitting a request to his > university library.

Unrelated to nutrition, but libraries and inter-library lending can track down all sorts of things and your taxes already pay for this service, so take advantage of it.

</comment><comment><USER49> > Despite requests, he cited no examples of her unprofessional behaviour. The > vitriol poured over Teicholz is rarely dispensed to Gary Taubes, though they > make fundamentally similar arguments.

I wonder why more women don't want to go into science.

<comment><USER50> Yes, that made me sad too. As the father of a girl, I'm often discouraged when I see how angry some men get when women (and only women) disagree with them, regardless of tone or substance.

</comment></comment><comment> blubb-fish 30 years ago people had to be proactive and smart enough to gain information. Now people have to be proactive and smart enough to distinguish between sound and unfounded (aka bullshit) information.

From that point of view not that much changed really.

<comment><USER51> No real difference between a "Dark Age" where info is cloistered for the few and a blindingly "Light Age" where the signal is buried in noise of conflicting interests.

The beauty of this puzzle for most people can be solved with a modicum of info, simple maths and listening to their body. Treating indigestion, constipation and other irritants with magic pills only masks the symptoms of bigger problems, most of which can be cured by diet & physical activity. Of course, as always, YMMV.

<comment><USER45> Yes there is. People use can and do use networks of trust to navigate the latter. It's messy, but it works to an extent. In the former you have no such option.

As a species we're becoming more knowledgable at a _staggering pace_ right now. If you think the non-academic world is not benefitting from having access to the Internet you are crazy.

<comment><USER51> I concur on the potential, quite staggering infos. However, the key word here is "can". It is very interesting to me to monitor progress of the young nerdlings I cross paths with regularly. There is hope, but there is also a shit-ton of distractions and general malaise. Where human nature + freedom of will are concerned, the difference is, again, "can". For better or worse the die is cast. To say nothing else, the digital renaissance makes for very interesting times.

edit: typos & clarity

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> It will take a solid 5 years minimum for the 'main stream dietitians' to start believing this and promoting it. My mom with all the information I have shared, still refuses to give up milk and thinks I may be reading too much into a 'FAD DIET' to say things like milk can be bad for health. Either she is too entrenched/doesn't care or I am not providing enough evidence or need to provide an alternative way of making her switch.

<comment><USER53> The article agrees with your mom:

 _We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker._

<comment><USER54> Vegetable oils, having vegetable in the name, sound healthy but are like the HFCS of the oil world. They are cheap, heavily processed, and prone to rancidification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> the healthy diet..

lots of vegetables, fatty meats, rice for carbs, and no addded sugars, and nothing you see in bakeries ( ie no breads etc) and virtually no pasta.

<comment><USER56> Sorry but you can't proclaim one healthy diet for everyone; people with different genes, activity levels and gut microbiomes will respond differently to different foods.

That being said, even your simplified recommendations are wrong. A ton of research exists linking saturated fat to systemic inflammation and a worsening of insulin sensitivity in pre-diabetic populations. Rice is fairly bad carb source in terms of nutrients/calorie (not to mention arsenic contamination in American rice) - the only thing it has going for it is it is hypo-allergenic. Whole wheat/multigrain sourdough bread is actually a really good carb source. Additionally, there are premium pastas like Barilla protein plus that are good as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Mexico successfully increased their tax on sugary beverages, and companies threw relatively few hissy fits. I think a large part of the country's willingness to shoulder that tax, and the lack of push back from industry, came about as a result of positive leadership from Mexico's president at that time and the recognition that diabetes was becoming an epidemic.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm still waiting for a prominent figure in the nutrition world to start the debate about intermittent fasting just as Lustig is doing with sugar.

Many nutritionists are prescribing the exact opposite of it: avoid fasting for more than very few hours. Heck, my coworker have a timer that fires every 2 hours to remind him to eat something.

<comment><USER59> In fairness to nutritionists, intermittent fasting is really bleeding edge stuff. There have been some clinical research that shows it may be effective (in particular against pre-diabetes) but more research could be done on this, and plus it would need to filter down out of the scientific sphere.

Nutritionists get attacked both for jumping on "trendy" new ideas and for being too conservative. Really is no winning. Someone is going to criticise.

Plus much of the advice people read doesn't come from anyone qualified, even the term "nutritionist" has different meanings in different places and requires literally no qualifications at all in some jurisdictions (they're essentially "alternative medicine" practitioners).

Dietitians often require at least SOME professional training and certification. That's who a doctor will refer you to, rather than a nutritionist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> A friend watched "That Sugar Film" and it had a profound effect - I'm told that it's very difficult to avoid sugar these days in processed food (especially in fat-free products). I was blown away to learn that even low fat milk from the supermarket contains sugar.

<comment><USER61> The lactose that's a component of milk, or added sucrose/HFCS?

As I understand it, food manufacturers are going away from sugar a little. Sucralose provides a similar sweetness at no additional calories and with a longer shelf life.

<comment><USER62> Which is still the wrong way to go, I feel. We're now replacing the (newly introduced) refined sugars with even newer artificial sweeteners. I really don't look forward to hearing about them in another 40 years.

Stop sweetening. Period. There's a lot more to flavour than just sweet, and the sooner we can revive our taste for other flavours, the better our children will be.

<comment><USER63> I agree we don't need sweet food. I gave up carbs and everything tastes better. I don't use artificial sweeteners at all. Of course low carb may turn out to be harmful. Who knows. I feel better =, have lost some weight and my blood sugar and a1c is in the great range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Some of you have criticized governments here, and this is why small tech startups come to offer help. Lustig or not, the time for us to collect all useful nutrition information, tone it down so everyone can read and understand it, and give it to the population. Then, each individual can make this own nutrition choices - very much like smoking cigarettes and knowing the dangers this habit can pose to the long-term health.

Take the European Sugarwise for instance: [https://www.facebook.com/aboutsugarwise/](https://www.facebook.com/aboutsugarwise/). Powered by a handful of social entrepreneurs, Sugarwise is a mobile application to count nutrient intake and provide diet alternations when nutrient deficiencies are detected. The idea started with raising awareness about added sugar and exposing it in foods, and grew to cover a full range of nutrients and minerals. The bests part of it is that it is one of many great social projects that shape our future.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sugar: The Bitter Truth Video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) (as I did not see it linked)

</comment><comment><USER29> Sugar is not to be demonized, there is an overwhelming amount of research pointing to overconsumption as the culprit in ill health affects normally associated with sugar.

</comment><comment><USER66> Had Yudkin posted HN comments, he would have learned quickly that telling the truth is not only profoundly unpopular, but actively being penalized.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'll just leave this here... [http://nutritionfacts.org](http://nutritionfacts.org)

</comment><comment><USER68> big up the sugar tax! demonise sugar so we can tax it like tobacco...

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra Isn't it, like, obvious that excessive sugar is bad for you?

It tastes good, and you consume a lot of it. Kind of easy to make an inference. Doesn't require any research.

I was taugt from my childhood that excessive sugar leads to obesity and diabetes. Not that I cut down its consumption by a lot :), but at least I was aware, as everybody else around me.

Maybe it's because we're all hypochondriacs here so we assume that anything is bad for you unless proven otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER69> My take on this article is that nutrition science is not science, no one knows what the fuck they're talking about, and we're basically still in the 1920's with absolutely no real nutritional information or system (usually science in our society) to get there. Having lost someone very dear to me to "cholesterol" and knowing it was a lie at the time, let alone now, this makes me fuming angry. But I live in the US, where the primary driving factor for such misinformation is continuing to profit off of people's misery, so it's hardly surprising that profit has completely kicked science out of one of its most important subjects. Maybe when we stop letting companies profit off of misery and pain, we'll learn something, but I doubt that will ever happen.

<comment><USER70> I wonder if we will someday discover that everybody's bodies are dramatically unique and require their own diet to maintain health - i.e. some people can't handle much sugar, some people can't handle much cholesterol, some saturated fat, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I still dont agree that sugar is the problem. Lustig himself seems to have not figured out what the secret is to health and weightloss as he is obese to morbidly obese.

Saturated fats still do cause heart disease, strokes, alzheimers.. anything where blood is blocked or doesnt reach the organ it needs to.

If anything, processed sugars like HFCS which is extracted from corn by a chemical enzyme process, could be the cause. But the problem to me is when people think chocolate bar, cake, pizza or milk shake.. these are food items with 75% calories from fat. So if you exclude high fat items and greatly reduce heavily processed sugar foods, you will not have the issues we are facing today.

<comment><USER72> The irony of you starting your rebuttal with an ad hominem attack is pretty amusing.

Expecially in reponse to an article that talks at length about others in nutritional science using ad hominem attacks as a primary form of defence against dissident arguments.

<comment><USER71> It may seem like an attack, but you can also consider it fair comment as he is an expert tell us that sugar causes weight gain, when he himself is obese for many years now. How can you both be an expert on weightloss and obese at the same time?

<comment><USER73> You're confusing knowledge and application of that knowledge in a personal situation.

A cosmologist may know all about the orbit of the planets but still say 'The sun rose this morning'.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What high school teachers never tell their students - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aew8m9/high_school_teachers_of_reddit_what_is_the_one/ <comment><USER2> This is a reblog (without attribution!) of this AskReddit thread: High School teachers of Reddit, what is the one thing that you want your students to know that you'd never tell them in person? [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aew8m9/high_scho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aew8m9/high_school_teachers_of_reddit_what_is_the_one/)

<comment><USER3> To be fair, I cannot read that link because reddit seems to have stepped up their efforts at making their mobile website unusable.

<comment><USER4> Why is it that they hate their own mobile page? I feel like I must be missing some reason that they want me on their app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Parody post [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aft8dw/high_scho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aft8dw/high_school_students_of_reddit_what_is_the_one/)

</comment><comment><USER6> "Most of what we have taught you isn't how the world really works. Good luck."

<comment><USER7> This is called Wittgensteins Ladder.

<comment><USER8> For weeks I've been trying to find a good, simple explanation of Wittgenstein's Ladder (I'm not the greatest at understanding philosophy). Appreciate this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That we're all just treading water, and that one day, the water will win.

</comment><comment><USER10> The word that immediately comes to my mind is 'Toxic'.

<comment><USER11> I'm really intrigued to see you say that. I work with many, many teachers. Most of the teachers I respect and admire, and these comments ring so true, just _so_ true.

What is it that you think is "toxic"?

What do you mean by "toxic"?

How much experience do you have of teaching?

<comment><USER10> The culture of sharing anonymously and/or openly how 'customers' make 'employees' feel. In this case, it's teachers and students. There are other examples like servers/diners, doctors/patients etc.

Firstly, it is not verifiable.

Secondly, it's spoken 'behind the back'.

Thirdly, they are talking about children. (In this case)

Fourthly, it seems like majority of teachers..especially young ones don't like what they do.

Fifthly, I think the way schools are being run.. the teaching methods should die.

Sixthly, it's like having cooks who hate to cook for you. One day, they will spit on your plate. It's a given.

<comment><USER11> I can say from personal experience that pretty much everything there is something I've heard practising teachers say, though not necessarily in those words. The sentiments are exactly as I've seen.

When you're under significant stress with no means to control it, being able to vent can be healthy.

Yes, they are talking about children. Most of the teachers I work with are dedicated professionals being shat upon from on high, and it's only because in truth, underneath, they genuinely care about those in their care.

Fourthly, the teachers I know _love_ teaching. It's not a job, it's a calling. But they _hate_ so much of what they are forced to do by those setting the rules and regulations. This is especially galling given that those setting the rules and regulations have, in general, never been teachers, and while they might have the best of intentions, most of them haven't a clue.

I absolutely agree that the way schools are run must die, and the sooner the better, for the sake of everyone who deserves respect - the children and the teachers.

Finally, your analogy is flawed about diners and cooks/chefs, because it's not the teachers who are the customers, it's the parents and the administration. They are the ones who pay, they are the ones who demand results, they are the ones who places unreasonable burdens on the teachers. And yes, many of the teachers eventually rebel, but it's not by taking it out on the children.

So knowing teachers as I do, I think you are reading this with the wrong slant. I hope what I've said here makes your reassess, even if you don't end up changing your mind.

<comment><USER10> Having no idea what you have heard, I can only comment on the original post. Perhaps if I have had the same input as you did, maybe we would be in agreement.

'Venting' to public at large should still be taken with a pinch of salt (and disdain) especially since it's done anonymously.

Again. Your personal circle of friends who happen to be teachers is not the same sample as the posters quoted in the original post.

And I can say this for every single point you make about 'teachers you know' and I will still hold my opinion that the first word that came to my mind when I read the original post is 'toxic'.

Having said that..wrt your circle of teacher acquaintances and my own impressions, I think education as we know it needs to undergo a sea change.

Perhaps this notion of cramming 30-50 children in a room and force feeding them 'education' via a low paid, unhappy teacher is not a way to transmit knowledge or a love for learning.

I think if someone has a 'calling', they should do it for free or must be free to walk away without worrying about their means to survive. Since it's a career choice, it carries with it all the baggage of a rat race. One can't have it both ways.

Considering these very teachers are products of the same system of education, they are merely perpetuating the unpleasantness that they had to endure.

I see this as abuse on many levels. Education and schools as we know it must die and take up another avatar.

Parents and administrators (at least here in California) have little to no power. It's a battle for public money between unions and Sacramento. That's what _I_ see from what I have observed. It's really very dirty politics. Teachers have chosen a side and it seems like they'd say anything they are instructed to opine. For example: there is a 'work to rule'. It's like a walk out. Teachers will only work for 5.5 hours teaching. They won't grade papers, won't write recommendation letters, won't communicate with teachers. This happened six months ago too. 25000 teachers in LAUSD are striking in Los Angeles Unified schools. No classes. Nothing. Full on strike. This isn't a calling. When one joins an union and goes on strike, it's not a "calling".

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, but I am not sure it has made a difference. I have heard others say the same thing second hand but the first hand opinions that I have heard from teachers themselves have been different.

<comment><USER12> I have heard the exact opposite. That teachers increasingly have to acquiesce to the demands of parents and administrators. That they want to be creative and exercise their "calling," the art of it and care given to individual students. But they cannot because they're pressured by onerous top-down regulation, school administration, or blowback from zealous parents.

And also, yeah I wish everyone could perform their calling for free, for the simple joy of it, but the fact of the matter is that life isn't like that and never will be like that.

<comment><USER10> Interesting.

Who has a say in a child's education?

Let's go over the parties involved:

1\. Parents 2\. Teachers 3\. Administrators 4\. Union 5\. The State 6\. Tax payers/public 7\. The Student

It would be interesting to map the relationships between these various players and their influence weights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Teachers always forget: everyone has been to school. So teachers moan about how much time they spend lesson planning but I wonder how much planning went into putting on a video and nipping out for a fag? Or marking, but I wonder, when the answer book was given out and everyone marked their own? So when they whine about how underpaid they are, noone believes it for a second, in fact for the work they actually do they are if anything wildly overpaid... I'd start by paying them only during term time, so that's a cut of at least a third immediately, maybe a half.</comment>


Functional Programming with Java - <AUTHOR> http://functionaljava.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> Taken from one of the examples :

      final HAppend<HCons<Boolean, HNil>, HCons<Double,
      HCons<String, HCons<Integer[], HNil>>>, HCons<Boolean,
      HCons<Double, HCons<String, HCons<Integer[], HNil>>>>> one = append(zero);

It's here that I miss the repurposed _auto_ keyword of C++ to do some rudimentary type inference.

<comment><USER2>
        final boolean b = a.exists(new F<String, Boolean>() {
          public Boolean f(final String s) {
            return fromString(s).forall(isLowerCase);
          }
        });

It's here that I miss lambdas to make functional code at all readable.

<comment><USER3> _exactly_ the example I was going to cite. In Scala this would be

val b = a.exists(str=>str.forall(_.isLowerCase))

or

val b = a.exists(x=>x.toLowerCase() == x)

There's no way I'd start using functional programming in Java if it's this clunky. Just stick with Scala.

<comment><USER4> Enumerable.java (<http://enumerable.org>) is not really a functional library, but it does support limited closures:

boolean b = a.any(λ(s, s.equals(s.toLowerCase()));

s and λ are statically imported.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great Job!!

To those wondering why not move to Clojure or Scala instead of this approach, here is why I am holding back:

a) I have a mission critical enterprise app that is in maintainance mode. I need to enhance certain features dealing with concurrency -- my team can ramp up Actor model implementation in functionaljava or Jetlang faster than they can ramp up on Scala.

b) No doubt that Scala is actually better Java , but I am confident that later versions of JDK would catch up. The concurrency features of JDK 7 are pretty good.

c) did I mention the team -- its hard enough finding a good java programmer; imagine how difficult it would be to hire good Scala programmers from the small eclectic community of Scala programmers.

d) most of the enterprisey stuff my team develops doesn't require functional programming -- just reliable applications delivered within drop dead deadlines. Plain old Java gets me there . JDK 7 concurrency and various Actor model implementations in Java such as FunctionalJava, Jetlang , Kilim are just cherry on top.

<comment><USER6> It would be actually easier to hire a good Scala than a good Java programmer because most Scala programmers are good. PG has an essay on this phenomenon somewhere.

I'm also not confident that Java will "catch up" to Scala. There's more to Scala than concurrency or functional programming. Type inference, first class objects, short syntax for FP, persistent datastructures, a better object system, etc.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your opinion about Scala.

However, my point was that Java will continue to be always good enough to steal thunder from more promising languages. ( I realize that Oracle may find a way to screw it up)

Had JDK 7 not included Fork/Join and had Actor model implementations such as Jetlang, Kilim and FunctionalJava not been developed, there could have been a strong case to call Java dated and explore Scala in the enterprise. I began exploring Scala / Clojure to deal with multicore CPUs .concurrency etc. but that is no longer a valid concern.

Java was never elegant to start with -- it just barely got the job done -- and continues to get the job done and that is good enough.

They say that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a Nail. Java is my hammer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or even better than using libraries for functional programming in Java, learn and use Scala. You can mix Scala and Java code where needed.

<comment><USER8> scala != functional programming <http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/scala- not-functional/>

It does have functional programming constructs though

Clojure is a much better candidate for FP on the JVM.

<comment><USER9> [http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/what-is-a- functional-...](http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/what-is-a-functional- programming-language/)

Note: NOT written by same guy who did "Scala not Functional".

Everybody has a different definition of FP in mind with these, uh, parameters:

\- "no hidden side effects"; clearly demarcated IO functions, database calls.

\- curry, partial function application; lexical closures

\- TCO

\- 1st class, higher-order functions

\- Immutable / persistent collections / data structures

Altho most people agree that these are orthogonal to the definition of FP, (but nice to have:

\- type inference (ML's is variously referred to as Damas-Milner or Hindley- Milner) or static typing

\- lazy eval

\- pattern matching

\- green/lightweight threads with message passing OR STM/MVCC

\- monads,arrows, functors, CPS

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/485418/distinctive- traits...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/485418/distinctive-traits-of- the-functional-languages)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1112773/what-are-the- core...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1112773/what-are-the-core- concepts-in-functional-programming)

<comment><USER9> is scala FP? Usually FP languages are :

\- lisps and schemes: CL, racket,

\- the ML/erlang/haskell axis incl ocaml,

\- spoken of in reverent tones: dylan, clean, mozart/oz

\- the JVM/CLR languages: clojure, F#, scala, groovy, jruby

<comment><USER7> Well you have the answer:

"- the JVM/CLR languages: clojure, F#, scala, groovy, jruby"

Yes, it is, it's and OO and FP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anybody know if there is a library like this for C/C++?

<comment><USER10> After a quick Google, I see there are a few. So I change my question to: has anybody used and liked/disliked one of these libraries or a similar one?

The main ones I could find were FC++ and FACT:

<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/> <[http://hci.usask.ca/people/ragu/writings/FunctionalProgrammi...](http://hci.usask.ca/people/ragu/writings/FunctionalProgrammingInCPP.pdf>); <http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/FACT/Old_Pages/fact_index.html> [http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/functional/index.h...](http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/functional/index.html) <http://okmij.org/ftp/cpp-digest/Functional-Cpp.html> or <[http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Calling_Haskell_from_C...](http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Calling_Haskell_from_C>); :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have played with FC++ a little bit. Its nice, but if you are used to scheme it will feel verbose. But one cant really complain, C++ wasn't really meant for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11>
      java -jar clojure.jar</comment>


Developer Hiring Trends in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/03/09/developer-hiring-trends-2017/ <comment><USER2> React is obvious, it's included with nearly every front-end posting these days whether the company uses it or not.

But other than that it looks like it is a good time to be a data engineer or a Gopher. I'm surprised that Go is the only high growth language, but I guess it coincides with Docker/DevOps/Sysadmin growth.

<comment><USER3> IMO Go is a spiritual sequel to Java. Both strongly focus on programming for multiple platforms by large teams.

<comment><USER4> I don't think that go puts as much emphasis on cross platform.

<comment><USER5> It's the spiritual successor for Java running on servers - supporting Linux and OSX is all that's necessary.

<comment><USER6> Why OsX? Just for local development purposes? I don't think I've seen any OsX servers except as build machines for iOS builds.

<comment><USER5> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is the main plot a little confusing? At least, I'm a little confused: the x-axis is labelled "% change from 2016 to 2015", and for example ReactJS has gone up by over 150% from 2016 to 2015...which means there was more ReactJS demand in 2015, right? except the article says it is the other way.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER8> I'm sure it's just a typo (years reversed) and should read: "% change from 2015 to 2016"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm little surprised the high demand of Windows (desktop) developers vs low (even negative growth) in case of OSX Developers.

This chart: [https://zgab33vy595fw5zq-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/...](https://zgab33vy595fw5zq-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/HighDemand.png)

</comment><comment><USER10> iOS may be popular but it also seems very much tied to onsite work. Whenever I do remote-specific job searches there's 100x more remote opportunities for web devs.</comment>


Goss – Quick and Easy server validation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aelsabbahy/goss <comment><USER2> This is cool. I like the idea quite a bit. This definitely solves a problem that I've thought about quite a bit, and have taken a stab at with one-off scripts.

What I don't quite like is the fact that as one's expectations become more complex, one has to start encoding that logic into YAML with this custom assertion/pattern matching DSL as shown in the README. I think this might be more easily adopted if it could be integrated into an existing testing framework, allowing to developers to use our familiar patterns of assertions, and use the tools that we're already familiar with.

</comment><comment><USER3> Honest question: Why? Why do things twice? Ansible already promises me to install a specific version of a program, check a certain port (wait_for), make sure a file is owned by someone, etc, etc. If Ansible can't make it happen: it will quit.

Why add goss to the equation?

<comment><USER4> The idea is that you don't test the things that ansible has already declared it will do (install pkg, start service), but test the side effects, i.e. is the started service listening on the expected port, is the process of the service daemon running, etc.

<comment><USER3> Do you have more examples? Because: "is the started service listening on the expected port, is the process of the service daemon running"

can all be done with straight Ansible as well.

I'm just having a hard time understanding the real added value to a goss / ansible combo.

Plus: If you do this after installing with ansible. It's basically a check right? Like: Nagios or other monitoring.

I'd rather that just use THAT and spend time in creating checks in those systems instead of spending time in goss?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used goss for testing ansible roles. It is simple enough to put in my CI and to configure. Having a .yaml syntax similar to Ansible makes it the appropriate choice for the task.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why this vs. InSpec?</comment>


Put Wisconsin First has doxxed everybody who signed the Walker recall - <AUTHOR> http://putwisconsinfirst.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Search on court records, tax deliquents, and sex offender status; browse "charged bad acts" ranging from seat belt violations to possession of child pornography. Once you find an interesting record, you can see addresses and scanned signatures.

Even better: the "Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia" plans to send armed members to confront recall signers at the polls, follow them home, and call the police to pick them up. [http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisc...](http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisconsin- poll-watcher-militia-plans-to-confront-scott-walker- recall/article_062df082-5fea-5363-b498-c0c51aa5fa30.html)</comment>


Storytelling Tips for Technical Interviews - <AUTHOR> https://stanete.com/storytelling-tips-technical-interviews <comment><USER2> Here's one of my favorite examples: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDoH15ylAeo&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDoH15ylAeo&feature=youtu.be)

<comment><USER3> haha, this was fun!

<comment><USER4> i lol'd. hey, if anyone wants to practice answering behavioral questions for real on my youtube, let me know. it's a nice way to practice and help others learn from what you do well and can improve. it's meant to be earnest and lighthearted, not intentionally comedic, though making an interviewer chuckle is not a bad way to connect ;-p

[https://www.youtube.com/CandidatePlanet](https://www.youtube.com/CandidatePlanet)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Being interesting is generally more important than being right: [https://codeformore.com/technical-interviews-interesting- is-...](https://codeformore.com/technical-interviews-interesting-is-normally- more-important-than-right/)

<comment><USER6> This is true for life in general, but I'm not sure it works for technical interviews.

I've seen many candidates derail themselves by trying to tell interesting stories without realizing that the interviewer doesn't care. Many companies treat technical interviews as a test and have strict rubrics that are specific to the question.

If I ask a candidate:

"Okay, but how would you replace that XMLHttpRequest with fetch?"

all I want is a straightforward answer that shows you know the answer to the question, or an explanation of why you don't, ex:

"Oh, I would Google that. I exclusively used Axios in my prior job but I could learn fetch in an hour or two"

I know you want to feel heard and I will listen if you want to tell me how you fought your boss and won in a quest to replace all of your homegrown internal tooling with jQuery, but pay attention to your interviewer's body language and responses.

In general, my advice for an interview is never talk more than 1-2 minutes without getting active encouragement from your interviewer to continue on the current thread of conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> And in today's interviews environment, telling the greatest stories along the greatest CV, training for months and months on leetcode problems and being able to convincingly act like you never seen them before during the interview, generally bending over backwards and taking it into your ^H^H^H or what else, all that that will dramatically raise your chances of getting hired from 0.1 to 0.2%.

<comment><USER8> I think if you actually did all that then you'd almost certainly get the job. I wonder why there's that disconnect?

<comment><USER9> I've done all of that, and the best job I got was Amazon :/ It seems like this industry only works if you're just naturally intelligent (or lucky)

<comment><USER10> "The only job I got is one of the statistically highest-paying companies for engineers in the country that can be leveraged to move to any company I want in a couple years."

It's hard not to cringe at the amount of entitlement in being upset that your only job was Amazon.

<comment><USER11> They surely must have meant in the warehouse?

<comment><USER9> No I'm an SWE

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Taleb makes the observation in his latest book Skin in the Game that the best storytellers are necessarily also bullshit artists.

<comment><USER13> Hard disagree. A bullshit artist is a good storyteller because they tell you exactly what you want to hear. The best storytellers can change your mind.

<comment><USER14> I've seen both. I had a manager who was a mesmerizing storyteller but was really full of bullshit and I have watched the even more mesmerizing Brian Greene who is not full of bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > You can read this post in Spanish here.

Just a small comment: isn't this better written in Spanish? Just this sentence. Non-English speakers won't know what this says to click it.

The Spanish version has this, too:

> Puedes leer este post en inglés aquí.

I wouldn't know this means the same for reading the post in English.</comment>